Fox News Falsifies Footage of Protest

Fox News reminds me of William Randolph Hearst. They're no longer even trying to be subtle about falsifying the news. In particular, the latest from Fox News reminds me of something Hearst's New York Mirror did back in 1932. Here (in the words of Curtis MacDougall) is the 1932 incident:

In 1932 the New York Mirror ran a picture allegedly of hunger marchers storming Buckingham Palace in London. It was revealed that the scene actually was of a 1929 crowd gathered anxiously during the illness of King George V.

And here's what Fox News did recently, in the words of the Huffington Post:

The tea party protests continued last week, as Congresswoman Michele Bachmann held an anti-health-care-reform rally on the steps of the Capitol. While she estimated that 20,000-45,000 people attended the event, the Washington Post reported it was actually more like 10,000.
Still, that is a sizable number of Americans exercising their right to free speech and assembly, and that warrants news coverage. But Sean Hannity and his team did more than cover the event. They not only inflated the number in attendance with their words, but actually used footage from a heavily-attended protest this summer to make this health care rally appear more popular. Hannity even pointed out that this was a huge crowd for a Thursday, when the protest footage they used was from a Saturday.
Jon Stewart and his team caught this discrepancy and ran with it, pointing out neither the color of the leaves nor sky in the tacked-on video matched that of the actual footage.

This is a silly false equivalence and I should know better than to reason with such an ignorant response. But . . .

In the CBS case, producers relied on evidence submitted by OTHER PEOPLE in bad faith, which CBS used (lost on nearly everyone is that there are factual irregularities with Bush's National Guard experience and plenty of missed time). In the CBS case, people ultimately reviewed the evidence carefully and (in the CBS case) several people were fired, high up people were asked to resign and did.

In the Fox case there are simply reviewing to make sure that their producers and on-air people do a better job producing the story they see fit to tell (which is different than producing news but that is lost on Fox viewers even though those producing it are well aware of what they are doing). To that end they call it "inadvertant" and are resolved to tell their story better next time. This is the everyday practice and people are rewarded for "telling stories" each day (no one is fired and the only review relates to how well they can match the given angle they want to tell).

Posted by floormaster squeeze on Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 11:39 AM

Falsified News, or Simple Mistake?

Posted by Wally on Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 12:42 PM

Alex,

Bringing political biases to your website only marginalizes your audience. We all have them, I'm just suggesting that your site is not the proper forum for your political opinions. Hannity isn't a newsman and doesn't hold himself out to be. He's a commentator. He also went on the air last night and quickly admitted the error.

Fox News is certainly not my primary news dispensing source. But after all the other outlets blatantly ignored the Van Jones story and the ACORN story, Fox earned a place on my browser's toolbar

Posted by Lou N on Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 01:14 PM

To floormaster squeeze:

CBS news continued to insist the documents were genuine until finally presented with overwhelming evidence they weren't. The producer who was fired STILL insists they're real! The real difference is that one news org used a video from another protest to embellish the current story. The other told outright lies, more than once, and only backed down because they had to.

And as for my "ignorant response," at least I'm not an obnoxious jerk.

Again, Fox News producers meet daily to shape the news agenda. If another country or cause did this, Fox News would call it propaganda. They do it every hour of every day. They will distort, manipulate, and create misimpressions all day, every day to shape things (not to report things). You act like this is a one-off "mistake" when it is constant, intentional "feature". I like news, sorry.

Your response was ignorant as a simple matter of fact (both of them now actually).

Calling a person an "obnoxious jerk" is of course so charming. Thanks!

Posted by floormaster squeeze on Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 02:01 PM

"Calling a person an "obnoxious jerk" is of course so charming. Thanks!"

Personal invictives aside, are you suggesting there is a single news or media organization that does NOT meet daily to set their agenda? Sorry to advise that has been going on since newspapers began. I'm not condoning Fox's actions, but merely wish to point out that their actions are the rul, not the exception.

Regards,

Lou

Posted by Lou N on Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 02:13 PM

"Bringing political biases to your website only marginalizes your audience. We all have them, I'm just suggesting that your site is not the proper forum for your political opinions." -- Lou N

Are you saying that mentioning what appears to be a bit of falsification in the news is not an appropriate subject for a website about hoaxes and falsehoods?

Posted by Accipiter on Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 05:15 PM

Reporting on the fake video is fine. Saying the entire org does this a matter of course is what's objectionable.

Not at all. If Alex had done a piece on falsification in the news and this was but one example, fine. But it was a shot at Fox. He quoted the Huffington Post for gosh sakes! He compared Fox to Hearst who, some would argue, started the Spanish American War.

When this becomes a regular feature of this site and targets include CNN and the NY Times and Air America and the aforementioned Huffington, when there are no favorites but an objective presentation, I will happily withdraw my original objection and apologize to my fellow visitors to the site.

Trying to keep it civil,

Lou

Posted by Lou N on Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 05:41 PM

"When this becomes a regular feature of this site and targets include CNN and the NY Times and Air America and the aforementioned Huffington, when there are no favorites but an objective presentation, I will happily withdraw my original objection and apologize to my fellow visitors to the site.
"

EXACTLY!!!

Posted by Chris on Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 05:55 PM

"People watch Fox news?"

actually more than any other network but go ahead and play stupid if you like

Posted by Chris on Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 06:00 PM

"Not at all. If Alex had done a piece on falsification in the news and this was but one example, fine."

And how is this not but one example of one of the pieces he has done about falsification in the news? He has written pieces before about falsification in the news, and this is yet another of those.

"But it was a shot at Fox."

So, he shouldn't post things about Fox falsifying the news when Fox falsifies the news, because it makes Fox look bad? How is he supposed to report on something like this and make Fox look good, then?

"He quoted the Huffington Post for gosh sakes!"

And in what regards was what the Huffington Post wrote incorrect on this matter, so that Alex shouldn't have used it as a source?

"He compared Fox to Hearst who, some would argue, started the Spanish American War."

Hearst famously used a photo from a past event and acted as though it was a photo of a current event. Fox News seems to have used a video from a past event and acted as though it was a video of a current event. In what way is this not a valid comparison?

"When this becomes a regular feature of this site and targets include CNN and the NY Times and Air America and the aforementioned Huffington, when there are no favorites but an objective presentation, I will happily withdraw my original objection and apologize to my fellow visitors to the site."

So if there are no currently circulating examples of CNN or the New York Times falsifying information, then Alex should either make up stories about them or else not post comments about Fox? Why didn't you complain that Alex was being biased against liberals on any of the many occasions where he posted about the New York Times messing up yet didn't also include information about Fox messing up to "balance it out"?

Posted by Accipiter on Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 06:49 PM

Hannity is not a news program. He's a commentator. That wasn't a news story. Get the difference? Didn't think so.

CBS faked a news story. They got the facts wrong. Hannity showed the wrong photo but the event occurred.

Alex has shown his colors before.

OK to use Huffington as a source? They're a blog with a clear agenda. Want to quote a legitimate news source for this story? Fox ran it this morning and Hannity did a mea culpa as soon as the story broke. How long did it take for CBS to come clean on the other story?

Posted by Carl on Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 07:27 PM

"Hannity is not a news program. He's a commentator. That wasn't a news story. Get the difference?"

He is a commentator who was commenting on a news story, who presents information to the public, and who was presenting the information as factual. If you're a news commentator rather than a news anchor, does that mean it is impossible for you to give out false information or to mislead people?

But the event apparently didn't occur the way that Fox reported that it did. They reported what seem to be inflated numbers, and only those numbers. They showed video that was from a past event and declared it to be video of a current event.

In what way is what Alex posted above false?

"OK to use Huffington as a source? They're a blog with a clear agenda."

That's irrelevant. Everybody has an agenda. What matters is whether the information is true. What part of the Huffington Post story that Alex quoted is false?

"Alex has shown his colors before."

Such as when he posted the information about Dan Rather announcing an anti-Bush story that turned out to be false? Or perhaps when he wrote about how such newspapers as The Economist was publishing false anti-Bush information regarding the intelligence of Republican voters, perhaps? Or maybe when he reported the falsehood behind that smear campaign against Sarah Palin regarding her daughter making an obscene gesture? Or was that when he posted about the false reports about soldiers torturing people in Iraq? Or was it when he debunked the story that an expert had proved Bush to be a moron, or the other story that Palin has a "dull normal" IQ? Was it when he reported that the claims of New Haven, Connecticut apologising for Bush being born there were actually a hoax? Could it have been when he said that the claims of Bush using a fake turkey in a photo-op in Iraq were unfounded? Was it when he told how photos showing Bush holding a book upside-down were actually faked? Was it when he wrote that claims of Reagan calling Bush a ne'er-do-well were false? Maybe it happened when he told us that reports saying Bush had been charged with war crimes by Canada weren't true? Was it when he debunked claims that Bush was tricked into making an obscene gesture at cameras?

"Want to quote a legitimate news source for this story? Fox ran it this morning and Hannity did a mea culpa as soon as the story broke."

And how is Alex supposed to use a source that didn't exist at the time? Besides, Fox is a network with a clear agenda, so according to your argument they can't be considered a legitimate source. Especially not when they're reporting on themselves.

Posted by Accipiter on Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 08:40 PM

Hey dude,

You win. Arguing must be your favorite hobby.

Troll no more my friend.

Carl

Posted by Carl on Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 09:14 PM

"'People watch Fox news?'"

"actually more than any other network but go ahead and play stupid if you like"

Um, no, Fox News is NOT the highest-rated TV network, either in the whole world or just the U.S. Not even close. This is a commonly-held misconception on the part of Fox News fans.

Fox News DOES have more viewers than CNN, Headline News or MSNBC, making it the highest-rated cable NEWS channel in America. Several other cable channels have more viewers than Fox News and a number of shows on other, non-news cable channels have more viewers than ANY show on Fox News, including Sponge Bob Square Pants and WWE RAW.

All of the Big Four broadcast networks (ABC, CBS, Fox and NBC) have MUCH larger audiences than Fox News.

I'd be happy to explain the misconception about Rush Limbaugh's ratings some time if you're interested in the facts behind that myth.

Posted by Cranky Media Guy on Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 05:31 AM

Carl said:

"You win. Arguing must be your favorite hobby."

Translation: You just tore my argument into tiny shreds, but I'm not intellectually honest enough to admit it.

Posted by Cranky Media Guy on Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 05:34 AM

""People watch Fox news?"

actually more than any other network but go ahead and play stupid if you like
Posted by Chris on Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 03:00 PM "

I think it's funny how each of the news networks claims that they are the most watched, each has "accurate statistics" showing it, and people actually believe those statistics.

Posted by Tim on Sat Nov 14, 2009 at 02:03 AM

Flamewars are bad - but really, all news sources are bias, some more then others.

Its only Fox News that's more infamous for it. Its seen as a joke overseas haha

Posted by Derek on Sat Nov 14, 2009 at 02:35 AM

so everyone is mad that fox used stock footage of a big group of people for their story? why is this news? this is a practice that has been done on every single channel and news outlet on tv, ever. EVER.you can look at the earliest newsreels and see it done so its nothing new. just more fodder for the fox bashers formerly known as the bush bashers. bush is out of office so they cant bash him anymore on a daily basis and they certainly cant brag about the "change" they voted for because it isnt happening, nor will it...so the next target is fox news.

and ffs, quoting the huffington post? LOL, how many retractions and straight lies have they posted. heck why not go all out and just start quoting dailykos.

people need to grow up. if u hate fox news dont watch it. but crybabies need something to cry about so they can get the attention they so desperately crave. for example you wouldnt catch me ever on the washington redskins website...im not a fan, im actually as far from a fan of theirs as you can get. i couldnt imagine my life being so meaningless that i would spend my day watching a channel i dont like, watching shows like family guy and the daily show and bill maher to hear about a channel i dont like and then going online to repeat everything i heard the democrats say in bumper sticker sized sentences just to sound important.

how many times during the cronkite years did he use stock footage of battles in vietnam while telling a story about a battle their? or mention casualty numbers and show some footage of injured soldiers on stretchers but not specifically talking about the exact soldier on the stretcher. wow, according to this antagonistic and idiotic line of thinking no news outlet is truthful, so using the same broad brush that fox bashers like to use, lets just paint everyone who has ever reported anything, from murrow to cronkite to rather to dobbs.

Posted by mysticx0 on Sat Nov 14, 2009 at 03:04 PM

And this, my friends, is why politics is evil.

All this bruhaha over who lies more than the other one. Just accept the fact that EVERYONE lies maybe?

OK, my TV wnt bust during the 2006 Congressional campaign and I have never fixed or replced it. I don't watch TV, I don't watch FOX News. However, I rea the newspaper, and I know it lies, and I read news sites on the internet, and I expect all of them to lie. However, I did read a story on one of the news sites, I forget which one, concerning a study done - by an organization of professional journalists I think - that pointed out that Fox News was considered more accurate by liberals than conservatives. I just glanced through the artcle so I can't remember the details correctly but I remember thinking that it was a bit of news that needed more publicity if true.
BTW, something my father taught me in October of 1964 - If you don't honestly examine both sides of an issue you don't have an opinion, you're just a tape recorder.
In addition to the Bush lie, CBS 60 Minutes h a histry of presenting false "Viet Nam Vets" who claim to have done evil things and were never anywherenear Viet Nam.

>I rea the newspaper, and I know it lies, and Iread >news sites on the internet, and I expect all of >them to lie. However, I did read a story on one of >the news sites, I forget which one, concerning a >study done - by an organization of professional

Wow, this is KING OF THE INTERNET! ALL BOW DOWN!

Posted by Dr Bob on Sun Nov 15, 2009 at 11:46 PM

"And this, my friends, is why politics is evil.

All this bruhaha over who lies more than the other one. Just accept the fact that EVERYONE lies maybe?"

words to live by.

Posted by Shellfish on Tue Jan 12, 2010 at 03:29 PM

" But after all the other outlets blatantly ignored the Van Jones story and the ACORN story,"

Because the Acorn story was false. The guy edited the videos to add in voice overs hence they transcripts of what was said don't match what was shown in the video. The guy never turned over the original tapes plus the supposed advice would get the person using sent to jail and it's quite clear the Acorn were just saying stuff to someone they knew was a loony and to just get the person out of there before said loony became violent.

Amazing how the mainstream media including Fox neglected to mention the indepedent investigation by a former Attorney General had said the tapes were a hoax and Acorn had done no wrong.

Van Jones funny how when you bother to look up the claims you realize he was just smeared with falsehoods by Fox.